Trochilidae (1 Viewer)

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

We'll see if anyone can get a copy of the paper

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

After reading, things are clear now. It remains to be seen if Laurent will be convinced by their argument

 

[l_raty]

OK -- I am absolutely not convinced, thus.

Intriguingly, they are also apparently seeing a type designation for Leucolia in Gray's Handlist: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/38575521
Can anyone explain ?
What I see there is Leucolia being merely cited as one of several invalid, not-necessarily-objective synonyms of Leucippus Bonaparte. The latter receives two species; of these, fallax is printed in "Antique (or thick) type" because it was already present in the collection of the British Museum, while cervinus is printed in "Roman (or thin) type" because it was not (cf. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/38575429 ). (Of course, the word "type" in the last sentence is to be understood in a typographical, not nomenclatural sense.) I entirely fail to see how one of the included species can be interpreted as having been "designated" as the type of anything here, be it Leucippus, Leucolia, or one of the other synonyms.

The only type designations that I am aware of in Gray's Handlist are in the index at the end of the third volume.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

OK -- I am absolutely not convinced, thus.

Intriguingly, they are also apparently seeing a type designation for Leucolia in Gray's Handlist: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/38575521
Can anyone explain ?
What I see there is Leucolia being merely cited as one of several invalid, not necessarily objective synonyms of Leucippus Bonaparte. The latter receives two species; of these, fallax is printed in "Antique (or thick) type" because it was already present in the collection of the British Museum, while cervinus is printed in "Roman (or thin) type" because it was not (cf. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/38575429 ). (Of course, the word "type" in the last sentence is to be understood in a typographical, not nomenclatural sense.) I entirely fail to see how one of the included species can be interpreted as having been "designated" as the type of anything here, be it Leucippus, Leucolia, or one of the other synonyms.

The only type designations that I am aware of in Gray's Handlist are in the index at the end of the third volume.

and what is the type species of Leucolia after all? 🤣🤣🤣 What a mess

 

[l_raty]

and what is the type species of Leucolia after all? 🤣🤣🤣 What a mess

The type of Leucolia is now Trochilus fallax Bourcier 1843 by subsequent designation of Bruce & Stiles 2021, p. 377.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

The type of Leucolia is now Trochilus fallax Bourcier & Mulsant 1843 by subsequent designation of Stiles & Bruce 2021, p. 377.

Ah! So, for once Ramosomyia is justified ?

The previous type fixation in the revision of the Trochilini was not correct? Great Scott , I don't understand anymore 🤣🤣🤣

 

[l_raty]

Ah! So, for once Ramosomyia is justified ?

Yes, in effect, they have "inadvertently" pushed Leucolia aside, to put their own name in its place. (As I wrote above in #240, although I didn't then understand the reason.)
All the "type fixations" so far had attempted to make the type a nominal species that was not originally included, which cannot be correct.

Now the next questions are whether Ramosomyia is really to be interpreted as a "gen. nov." and not as a "replacement generic names" which "replaces Leucolia Mulsant & E. Verreaux, 1866", because it is called both in the paper (although it is quite clearly intended to be the former); and, if the former, whether it is not nude, because the diagnosis is really minimal (quite comparable to that of Elliotia, which was mooted as a nomen nudum here, see #131 above), which may in turn be a consequence of the name having been perceived as a replacement name (replacement names need no diagnosis at all).

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Yes, in effect, they have "inadvertently" pushed Leucolia aside, to put their own name in its place. (As I wrote above in #240, although I didn't then understand the reason.)
All the "type fixations" so far had attempted to make the type a nominal species that was not originally included, which cannot be correct.

Now the next questions are whether Ramosomyia is really to be interpreted as a "gen. nov." and not as a "replacement generic names" which "replaces Leucolia Mulsant & E. Verreaux, 1866", because it is called both in the paper (although it is quite clearly intended to be the former); and, if the former, whether it is not nude, because the diagnosis is really minimal (quite comparable to that of Elliotia, which was mooted as a nomen nudum here, see #131 above), which may in turn be a consequence of the name having been perceived as a replacement name

If you would make a classification of the valid genera of the Trochilini, what would it be? (Include synonym of each genus).

(replacement names need no diagnosis at all).

I confirm that 😉

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Anyway, a replacement name is useful only for a case of homonym 🧐

 

[l_raty]

Anyway, a replacement name is useful only for a case of homonym 🧐

A replacement name is useful only if the original name cannot become valid for some reason -- the most frequent reason being indeed, under the current rules, homonymy.
(Another possible reason might be that the original name was partially suppressed by the Commission. See Bockakatoe Wells & Wellington 1993 for an example.)

But, anyway, there is nothing in the Code to stop you from creating replacement names that are not useful.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

See Bockakatoe Wells & Wellington 1993 for an example

What's the problem with Bockakatoe ?

 

[l_raty]

What's the problem with Bockakatoe ?

There is no problem.
Bockakatoe was proposed explicitly as a "nom. nov. pro Kakatoe Cuvier 1800", which was then proposed for partial suppression by the Commission in order to preserve Cacatua Vieillot 1817 (and which was indeed subsequently partially suppressed in Opinion 1949; ICZN 2000; https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/12439134 ).
I was just offering this as an example of a nom. nov. that, under the current rules, might still be useful despite no homonymy was involved.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

There is no problem.
Bockakatoe was proposed explicitly as a "nom. nov. pro Kakatoe Cuvier 1800", which was then proposed for partial suppression by the Commission in order to preserve Cacatua Vieillot 1817 (and which was indeed subsequently partially suppressed in Opinion 1949; ICZN 2000; https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/12439134 ).
I was just offering this as an example of a nom. nov. that, under the current rules, might still be useful despite no homonymy was involved.

Okidoki

So if I summarize, hoping to have understood correctly, Caeruleomitra is useless "biscotte" Uranomitra is valid and available for franciae. Then, Leucolia is explicitly a synonym of Leucippus because these two genera take the same type species (fallax). Thus, Leucolia gets out, welcome Ramosomyia and Caeruleomitra is stillborn.

 

[ramphocelus]

The type of Leucolia is now Trochilus fallax Bourcier 1843 by subsequent designation of Bruce & Stiles 2021, p. 377.

I had first interpreted that Leucolia still lacked a fixed type species. But I must agree with Laurent that, eventhough Bruce & Stiles got the wrong reasons, their paper now fulfills the requirements for a type fixation per art. 69.1.1:
69.1.1. In the absence of a prior type fixation for a nominal genus or subgenus, an author is deemed to have designated one of the originally included nominal species as type species, if he or she states (for whatever reason, right or wrong) that it is the type or type species, or uses an equivalent term, and if it is clear that that author accepts it as the type species.
[Bold mine]

It is quite regrettable that such a mess has been done. Leucolia had already been adopted by AOS and is cited in a couple papers. Now it must be dumped in favor or Ramosomyia.

As for Uranomitra, it is clearly valid and is a senior objective synonym of Coeruleomitra Stiles & Bruce, 2021. The rationale presented by Bruce & Stiles does not find support in the ICZN.

Vítor

 

[l_raty]

Thanks, Vitor.

Now it must be dumped in favor or Ramosomyia.

Is Ramosomyia available ?

Diagnosis: “[...] two species, both of which share white underparts, dull green to bronze-green backs and more or less bronzy to rufescent rumps and tails; they differ mainly in the colors of the head region.”

(Elliotia, for comparison: “Both species weigh 4.5–5.5 g, lack sexual dichromatism, and have mostly white underparts speckled with green laterally; they differ in the amount of white in the tail.” Is Ramosomyia really better ?)

 

[ramphocelus]

Is Ramosomyia available ?

Diagnosis: “[...] two species, both of which share white underparts, dull green to bronze-green backs and more or less bronzy to rufescent rumps and tails; they differ mainly in the colors of the head region.”

Despite their mixed statements regarding replacement name versus new name, and despite the poor diagnosis, I'd take Ramosomyia as available. The Code does not required the diagnosis to be useful/flawless, so their text is enough. In any event, I'm taking the case to the Working Group on Avian Nomenclature just to sure this view is shared among the other members.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Thanks, Vitor.


Is Ramosomyia available ?

Diagnosis: “[...] two species, both of which share white underparts, dull green to bronze-green backs and more or less bronzy to rufescent rumps and tails; they differ mainly in the colors of the head region.”

(Elliotia, for comparison: “Both species weigh 4.5–5.5 g, lack sexual dichromatism, and have mostly white underparts speckled with green laterally; they differ in the amount of white in the tail.” Is Ramosomyia really better ?)

You've never seen the diagnosis of Oreolais because it's succinct as well

 

[l_raty]

The Code does not required the diagnosis to be useful/flawless

No, indeed.
But the Code does require the diagnosis to be intended to differentiate the taxon. I'm not at all sure that their "diagnosis" was intended to achieve this. (I suspect the authors here didn't actually think that diagnoses mattered, because they thought they were proposing replacement names. So they just picked up a couple of non-diagnostic characters shared by the two species and listed them.)

You've never seen the diagnosis of Oreolais because it's succinct as well

Believe me, there are few generic diagnoses that I have not seen.

"Diagnosis: Small, strikingly patterned cisticolid warblers with medium long, graduated tail with 10 rectrices. Above dark grey, below white with variable extent of reddish-buff and with black or sooty grey pectoral band separating throat from the lower underparts."​

Yes, this is short.
But much more diagnostic than a statement, about a new genus of hummingbird, that it is white below, green above and with a bronzy tail and rump.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

But much more diagnostic than a statement, about a new genus of hummingbird, that it is white below, green above and with a bronzy tail and rump.

All hummingbirds look the same anyway 🤣🤣🤣

 

[andrew147]

Ah! So, for once Ramosomyia is justified ?

The previous type fixation in the revision of the Trochilini was not correct? Great Scott , I don't understand anymore 🤣🤣🤣

So, what is the type species of Ramosomyia?